Satan in the World Today

[StuartJ]

The Devil is an actual person rather than a concept, Pope Francis has claimed. Satan is smart and should not be argued with, the Pontiff told TV2000, a Catholic broadcasting network. "This is evil, it is not a diffuse concept, it's a person," he said.

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 10621.html)

And according to Pastor John: "The extent of Satan’s influence is global; it covers all nations".

(https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/ ... tive-today)

Could it be that Satan has entered the hearts of we Atheists ...?

Could it be the global influence of the smart, evil person known as Satan that drives us to battle the truth of the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ ...?

Are we to blame ... can we shift responsibility ...?

[jeremiah1five]

The Devil, Satan, Lucifer is STILL an obedient servant of God.

And his interaction with man is mostly non-existent until later.
Until then he's on the sidelines.

C.S. Lewis has much to answer for. His Screwtape Letters, from Devil to nephew, are not factual documents.

If in some theological sphere Satan is the obedient servant of God, little humans would know nothing of this.

Can we supply a date for the entry of Satan into man's comedy of errors? 353 BC maybe, or 44 BC or 33 AD or 410 AD or 1571 or 1939 ? Fascinating stuff.

Hello marco.
Several questions to ask before coming to the knowledge of the truth.

First, I do not hold that angels can possess man - or animals.
Second, this serpent may have been just that: a serpent [Heb. to hiss] /snake.

Scripture says it was a 'beast of the field" and may have been an animal among the created environment of the earth. Or, Lucifer could have bene created among the created environment of the earth. The serpent was either a serpent which 'sparked' the woman to think in terms Scripture records, or there was an actual conversation with Lucifer whose language is a "hiss."

It should be noted that cherubs guard holy earthly things, while seraphims guard holy 'heavenly' things. Lucifer is a cherub. He guarded earthly holy things and we find this in Isaiah and Ezekiel. There are two 'heaven' in creation. The first heaven is from the ground to where outer-space begins. Second heaven is outer-space where the planets and the moons and stars reside. If Lucifer guarded a earthly holy thing then that means the throne of God in what is now called Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 28:13-14 (KJV)
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The word "anointed" in verse 14 means "out-stretched," and it can be argued he covered or was above the throne of God ("stones of fire" representing the Presence of God / "holy mountain" is Jerusalem / actually, the outskirts, and wherever God is, is holy - but it is God who is holy, not the mountain.)

IF the ministry of Lucifer was out-stretched and covering the throne of God, then his ministry would be in first heaven - merely feet off the ground. His desire, or stated purpose to 'ascend above the stars of God' is a literal goal. There is distinction between "sin" and "iniquity" and "transgression" et., and "iniquity in my studies is usually in context to the Law of Moses or a direct command of God. And there is no distinction between the Law and the Command of God. The Law of God are His Commands, and the Commands of God are Law.

I would be careful with "thou wast in Eden the Garden of God" because of the proximity of the throne, the garden, and the first recorded sin. However, I hold that since Christ was crucified outside the city that it may be the same spot where the first recorded sin occurred.

As to Lucifer's/Satan's entrance in human history I cannot say definitively, but there is order with God. Lucifer is still an obedient servant of God as are all God's creations - even man when it is considered that our will and lives are within the confines of God's Will and thus in this 'free will' is an illusion.

I'll leave it here for now.

[2ndRateMind]

Are we to blame ... can we shift responsibility ...?

Yes, we are to blame.

No, we cannot avoid responsibility.

The devil tempts. We decide.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[jeremiah1five]

Are we to blame ... can we shift responsibility ...?

Yes, we are to blame.

No, we cannot avoid responsibility.

The devil tempts. We decide.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Each term for the "devil" cannot be lumped into one ball.

Each is sometimes (in the NT) a noun, or an adjective, and although the Greek copies of what became the NT were capitalized to capitalize "devil" when it is an adjective is bad grammar.

"Devil" means traducer, or one who impugns the character of another, usually with false witness - or a liar.

Satan means "adversary," and although not assigned to man, man can be satan to God - unsaved and saved alike.


Lucifer is a proper name. It means "light-bearer."


"Serpent" in Genesis 3 means "[to] hiss."

I try to be precise myself, but when discussing the things of God with brethren who've not been discipled - and that's a great majority - the discussion goes off course when one says one thing that means a certain thing to one based on teaching, it can mean something else to another who was taught a certain way, and if one has not committed themselves to search the Scriptures for themselves to learn the Biblical meaning end up with what we have today. Confusion among those who just don't know.

You cannot learn the doctrine of Scripture from a translation, nor can you be taught from a commentary. Commentaries 'short-curcuit' the Holy Spirit and your thinking things through.

Consider.

[Danmark]

Each term for the "devil" cannot be lumped into one ball.

Each is sometimes (in the NT) a noun, or an adjective, and although the Greek copies of what became the NT were capitalized to capitalize "devil" when it is an adjective is bad grammar.

"Devil" means traducer, or one who impugns the character of another, usually with false witness - or a liar.

Satan means "adversary," and although not assigned to man, man can be satan to God - unsaved and saved alike.


Lucifer is a proper name. It means "light-bearer."


"Serpent" in Genesis 3 means "[to] hiss."

This is exactly as interesting as
'Is Superman's real name Clark Kent or Kal-el?'
or
'Can Aquaman beat up Batman?'

[Danmark]

You cannot learn the doctrine of Scripture from a translation, nor can you be taught from a commentary. Commentaries 'short-curcuit' the Holy Spirit and your thinking things through.

The hundreds of millions of Christians who are not fluent in Hebrew and Greek will be very surprised to learn this.

In addition to this ridiculous claim that inherently states translations are worthless, this absurd statement also claims the Holy Spirit is so feckless it can only communicate thru the original human language in which it was written.

[Don McIntosh]

Could it be that Satan has entered the hearts of we Atheists ...?

We atheists have no need for Satan. It is only those who want to pretend that God is good who need to find another being to blame for the horrible things humans at times face.

Satan is simply the tool used to support the claim that God isn't responsible for all that bad things that take place. God wanted everything to be great, but that pesky Satan spoiled his plan.

If atheists have no need for Satan they still need something to explain why beings like ourselves would recognize horrible and bad things or care about them in the slightest. A naturally evolved collection of molecules driven by nothing but an "instinct to survive" would have no time to stop and reflect upon its own suffering, let alone empathize with the suffering of others.

I do think Satan is a very real and malicious spiritual power. Who else could inspire people to commit evil, complain at length about the consequences of the evil they have committed, and finally dismiss the very notion of evil as a childish fiction?

[Goat]

Could it be that Satan has entered the hearts of we Atheists ...?

We atheists have no need for Satan. It is only those who want to pretend that God is good who need to find another being to blame for the horrible things humans at times face.

Satan is simply the tool used to support the claim that God isn't responsible for all that bad things that take place. God wanted everything to be great, but that pesky Satan spoiled his plan.

If atheists have no need for Satan they still need something to explain why beings like ourselves would recognize horrible and bad things or care about them in the slightest. A naturally evolved collection of molecules driven by nothing but an "instinct to survive" would have no time to stop and reflect upon its own suffering, let alone empathize with the suffering of others.

I do think Satan is a very real and malicious spiritual power. Who else could inspire people to commit evil, complain at length about the consequences of the evil they have committed, and finally dismiss the very notion of evil as a childish fiction?

That is a very Christian view of Satan. IN the Jewish religion, the concept of Satan is much different. In Judaism, there are no 'fallen angels', and Satan is an angel that has been given a specific role by God. That job is to provide men with bad choices. It is only be being presented with being bad that someone can choose to be good. To reject the bad, and choose the good will allow a person to lead a more sanctified life, and be closer to God.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 47 by Goat]

Is this position based on the Hebrew bible or just on rabonnic tradition?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 47 by Goat]

Is this position based on the Hebrew bible or just on rabonnic tradition?

The rabbinic tradition is based on the Bible. Look how Satan is treated in the book of Job. Ha-Satan can not do anything without God's permission first.

If fact,if you look at the Jewish scriptures 'ha-satan' is only mentioned twice. Once in the book of Zechariah, and in a more predominate roll in the book of Job. If you translate the word 'ha-satan' literally, it means 'The accuser', not just 'the adversary'. In other words, in both those stories, he is acting like the prosecuting attorney in the court of God.

Here is an overview of Jewish tradition (including some viewpoints that mirror the Christian ones, but those traditions came during the medival timeframes, and are influenced by Christian thought.)

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... adversary/

[Danmark]

If atheists have no need for Satan they still need something to explain why beings like ourselves would recognize horrible and bad things or care about them in the slightest.

Why adopt a system of belief that requires belief in unproved imaginary beings to explain behavior when there are sensible, natural explanations for such behavior? Why speculate about a fantastic world when simple observation and logic explain. The body does not like pain. We have evolved, as have most organisms, to avoid painful stimuli. That is how we try to avoid injury. There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain pain. The willful and unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering can be called 'evil.' Again, there is no need to resort to fantastic explanations or resort to pure imagination to explain either pain or evil.

OTOH, if your belief system claims the existence of a creative deity that can only be good, then it is necessary to invent a corollary imaginary being to explain evil. This however creates logical problems since the all-powerful 'good god' must necessarily surrender power or permission to the 'evil one' which implicates the 'good' god.

In short, there is no need to invent these gods and their very invention and attempts to logically support such fantasies collapse because of their inherent illogic AND because there has never been evidence of these imaginary, unnecessary inventions in the first place.